nemo

In order for the problem of Dysgenics to actually result in a genetic deterioration of the human population, wouldn't large numbers of relatively intelligent people have to procreate with large numbers of abhorrently stupid people? I'm finding it hard to believe that there are enough fraternity parties taking place worldwide to cause alarm on that front. Personally, I find the idea of one class of humans looking down on another class of humans and thinking “Their numbers are growing too great – something must be done”, both disturbing and remarkably similar to several precedents familiar to most any resident of Central Africa or Bosnia. This post may appear to contradict one I made while discussing stem cell research – here is the difference, as I see it. Dysgenics appears (from the description given) to state that certain people should not be reproducing as much as they do; that represents a problem. My view is that the problem is not that stupid people are reproducing at an alarming rate, it is that intelligent people are refusing to let the stupid people die. Every successful ecosystem on this planet revolves around the idea that the weak will be weeded out to make room for the strong – thereby improving the species and allowing for the continued existence of said species. Until relatively recently, disease, starvation and war kept the human population in check. We have now progressed to a point at which diseases have cures, second-tier celebrities send food and medicine to people who don't have it, and war is no longer popular unless the world agrees on an easily identifiable 'bad guy' and nobody gets hurt. I don't think we should exterminate any one group of people* - I just don't know why we are not letting nature take its course. Why has it not occurred to the world that any segment of the population that uses “Betcha I can” as a battle cry might not hold the virtue of self-preservation as close to the vest as they should?

Why Mercury? Is there something we need on Mercury? I understand the wonderful impact space travel has had on our lives (Tang jumps to mind), but it's occurred to me that we should be spending some money looking for things that might in fact benefit society as a whole (a search for an educated electorate perhaps?). What do you think?

Out of curiosity, why should the public invest money in space exploration. Communication satellites and the ability to travel faster than Earth's atmosphere will allow make brief space excursions logical, but as far as I can tell, a trip to Mars today would take a few years if you had the technology and cash to attempt such a mission. Where is the benefit?

I apologize for the format of my posts. The post above looked good when I submitted it as several distinct paragraphs, and looked exactly as I wanted it when I opened it with the 'Edit' button. Unfortunately, my posts seem to end up being smashed together into one long string when they actually hit the site. I'm new to the site and hope to be able to converse without the format of my message attracting more attention than the information within.

Here's an ethical objection: humanity's ability to extend life exponentially outpacing the deaths of those among us who, for whatever reason, should have died a natural death. Every so often, I will read in the paper or online about a pond that had to be drained to kill some asian ninjitsu fish that could have destroyed the environment because it had no natural predetor in the area to counter its population growth. We, as a species, are doing everything we can to ensure that someone who spends their life smoking, drinking, eating Big Macs and mating with anything that walks upright lives just as long as the person who will eventually find an efficient way to implement desalinization techniques to the worlds oceans and rid the world of drought. Having said that, I would - as a father - be willing to try anything from science to waving a dead chicken over the head of any of my children if I thought it would fix some grevious condition they had. My original objection was based on logic, my objection was based upon emotion. I believe we started to touch on this topic in an AI string over in the Computer Programming forum. Interesting quote at the bottom of your post FT - I had no idea Frank Lloyd Wright was a religious man.

I'd agree that there isn't much to an emotion that couldn't be developed into code, but I don't think any responsible programmer would actually write code like: if (upset == TRUE) { while (concious) { smash fist into wall; if (injured) { break; } } } Human emotions have been responsible for turning valuable tools and inventions like atomic power and gunpowder into weapons that we now blame for our own actions that, coincidentally, are the result of more emotions.

thanks. http://www.nswc.navy.mil/ISSEC/

If you are interested in XML, you might want to read the XML specification for OpenOffice.org. I've found it to be very well thought out, and an excellent representation of the data format that FT likes so much.

Perhaps I'm mistaken... I thought stem cells were currently being used to repair spinal injuries in adults; the only difference being that the cells in question were harvested from the sinus cavity of the adult in need of repair. Additionally, I have read that it is possible to harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord - wouldn't either of these possibilities negate any ethical objection to stem cell research?

Tinny, you might consider researching either of the two major Linux desktop platforms, GNOME or KDE for solid examples of open-source frameworks allowing individuals to contribute their applications - each application being both unique and completely integrateable to the desktop as a whole. A better implementation of the .Net framework is the Mono Project, started by Ximian, bought by Novell, and currently maturing at an amazing rate (http://www.mono-project.com)

Perhaps a better suggestion for Microsoft's awe - http://www.mono-project.com. Just a thought.